The Tharwa Review

An apostle, not a king

In the last of four edited excerpts from his new book, Chasing a Mirage, Tarek Fatah argues that the first Muslim state was really an Arab state.
Tarek Fatah,
National Post

Why do so many Muslims want to create a state which they feel is necessary to put into practice the message of Muhammad? What was the task of the Prophet Muhammad? Was he sent to Earth to be the ruler of the Muslim world, their king? Or was he Allah's apostle on Earth, a messenger for all of humanity, who left behind a moral compass to serve as guide for a more ethical, equitable and just society? Alternatively, was he both a Caesar and a Christ for Muslims?

I have no doubt that the Prophet's message of Islam was for religious unity and that Muslims were meant to be one spiritual body, part of the larger human family. Muhammad was undoubtedly the head of this Muslim Ummah. In order to establish the message of God, he used both his tongue and his spear. And before he died he shared with Muslims the last revelation he had received from God, "Today I have completed your faith for you."

During the 23 years that Muhammad shared the message of God -- the Qur'an -- with the people of Mecca and Medina, many times he and the people were reminded about the role of Allah's Apostle. A study of these Quranic revelations will help Muslims understand whether Muhammad was meant to be head of a political state or the head of a religious community or both.

The Egyptian scholar Ali Abd al-Razik in his seminal work, Al-Islam wa usul el-hukum (Islam and the Fundamentals of Authority), says the Qur'an confirms the Prophet had no interest in political sovereignty. He adds that the Prophet's "heaven-appointed work did not go beyond the limits of the delivery of the summons, entirely apart from any thought of rulership." He quotes the following verses from the Qur'an to prove his point.

Promote the faith, not the tribe

Tarek Fatah, National Post
Published: Wednesday, May 14, 2008

In the second of four edited excerpts from his new book, Chasing the Mirage, Tarek Fatah considers the fraught relationship between Arab and non-Arab Muslims.

The poet and philosopher Muhammad Iqbal, who was born in British India in 1877 and died in 1938, is celebrated in Pakistan as that country's "thinker." He was educated in Britain and Germany, and lectured throughout India, producing great works on Islam, politics and economics. He called for an Islamic revival, yet opposed the restoration of of the caliphate and an Islamic State on the grounds that it was an obstacle to the modernization of the Muslim world. He defended the separation of religion and state, writing, "The republican form of government is ... thoroughly consistent with the spirit of Islam..."

Iqbal was an early convert to Kamal Ataturk's republican secularism -- the foundation of the modern Turkish state. In his seminal work The Reconstruction of Religious Thought in Islam, Iqbal wrote: "Such is the attitude of the modern Turk, inspired as he is by the realities of experience, and not by the scholastic reasoning of jurists who lived and thought under different conditions of life..." that "if rightly appreciated, indicate the birth of an International ideal, which forming the very essence of Islam, has been hitherto overshadowed or rather displaced by Arabian Imperialism..."

The tenuous bond between the Arab and the non-Arab Muslim has, over the centuries, created a love-hate relationship, often one-sided and rarely discussed. While non-Arab Muslims have embraced many facets of Arabian culture and custom, the gesture has rarely ever been reciprocated. Whether it has been the feeble relationship between the Berbers and Arabs, or the never-ending mutual mistrust between Persians and the Arabs, this chasm is largely unnoticed in the Arab world. Iqbal's reference to "Arabian Imperialism" would elicit shock and denunciation from even the most liberal Arab; such is the state of denial.

Sunni or Shi'a, we are all Muslim

Hisham Hellyer

Oxford, England - BBC World recently aired the latest Doha Debate on the motion "The Sunni-Shi'a conflict is damaging Islam's reputation as a religion of peace". It's a timely topic; and a very time-sensitive topic, because it is a question that can only be asked now. Not because the Sunni-Shi'a divide is a new phenomenon: it is an old, historical schism that emerged as a political division, which then became religious. But it is now that the political has really caused it to be so monumental.

I admit that, but I spoke against the motion in Doha, because the damage to Islam's reputation is more about the sensationalism of the media, and focusing on Muslim violence in general, rather than Sunni-Shi'a violence. But the motion brought up another question for me: in the midst of the Sunni-Shi'a conflict that exists in some pockets of the Muslim world, what are we to make of what Islam is or what Islam is not?

Let us be clear: Muslims do not agree on everything. Sunnis have their four, recognised schools of law, and the Shi'a have their own tradition of establishing orthodoxy. Within both groupings, there is the concept of respect for differences of opinion, which are to be celebrated and cherished within each of the groups. In inter Sunni-Shi'a discussions, the concept takes a different tone. The differences are grudgingly tolerated, but with an important proviso: both groupings are Muslim.

The theologians of Sunni Islam long ago established that the "relied upon position" for Sunnis is that the Shi'a are in fact a Muslim community. That status of "relied upon" is a particular type of orthodox stance; one that is difficult to determine, owing to the diversity within Sunni Islam. But on this issue, it was established, and it has been part of the historical orthodoxy that so characterises Sunni Islam. On the Shi'a side, the same generally occurred: Sunnis might be mistaken, theologians said, and their views on Islam might be wrong, but they are still Muslims.

AFGHAN RIDERS SADDLE UP FOR BUZKASHI SEASON

The traditional rough-riding sport is as strong as ever, and there are even plans to make it international.
By Sayed Yaqub Ibrahimi in Mazar-e-Sharif

Springtime in northern Afghanistan brings the sound of hundreds of horses thundering over the dusty ground near the northern city of Mazar-e-Sharif. This is the season for "buzkashi", a wild sport in which troops of horsemen fight to seize control of a dead calf and land its carcass in a circle marked out as the goal.

Buzkashi is popular in other parts of Afghanistan, but riders regard Mazar-e-Sharif as the true home of the sport.

Peak season is in the spring, especially around April 20-21, the traditional Afghan new year or "Nauruz", when thousands of people flock to this northern city for celebrations that last 40 days. The visitors form the bulk of the spectators at the matches, which are usually held on Thursdays and Fridays.

The buzkashi grounds at Dasht-e-Shadian, a desert area ten kilometers south of the city, are a focus for matches which begin in January and reach their height in April, when hundreds of "chapandaz" or horsemen from other parts of Afghanistan congregate here.

This IWPR contributor went to one match between the local Balkh province team and their rivals from Kunduz to the east.

Haji Jamil Bay, who heads the Buzkashi Federation in Mazar-e-Sharif, was in the saddle leading the local riders.

The better angels of our natures

Daniel Abdal-Hayy Moore

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - Rivalry seems to be hardwired into human nature. Whether we take the Darwinian view or the theological one, it doesn't bode well for peace on earth, good will toward men. "Why can't we all just get along" might be the mantra of human history, resounding through all political systems as well as belief systems, wherever they come into close proximity. Transcending rivalries with compassion and forbearance would then be a spiritual step toward conscious tolerance that all religious revelations have insisted on.

With this in mind, for the non-Catholics among us the Pope's visit to the United States was an opportunity to widen our mental telescopes and look beyond the fanfare headlines. It was an opportunity to take to heart the importance of interfaith respect in our increasingly fractious world.

Given tensions with the global Muslim community following the Pope's Regensburg address in 2006, it is fair to say that Muslims watched the visit closely. The televised baptism of a Muslim convert to Catholicism during the recent Easter Service was also a serious and potentially volatile event that may have been construed as a deliberate slight by the Pope and could have created a violent reaction on the part of Muslims (thank God it did not). Muslims, after all, believe that Islam is the final revelation in the ancient chain of divine teachings, and anyone converting from it to any earlier one is something that, by our own spiritual etiquette, should not be flaunted publicly, as it implies active opposition to the subsequent message and Messenger of Islam.

For Muslims, deep love of the Prophet Muhammad and taking a strong stand for Islam are strong and sensitive issues because we value Islam so highly – not because we think ill of Christianity, repeatedly mentioned as a legitimate religion in God's eyes in the Qur'an, along with Judaism. But human sensibilities are often dry tinder next to flames – I've always felt that Muslims should have ignored The Satanic Verses of Salman Rushdie when it appeared, rather than catapult it to bestseller status and themselves as unflattering representatives of Islam at the same time.

It is imperative that Muslims should revere the devotion of Christians and all others as they do their own, and greet a man or woman of God among us, whomever it might be, as a reminder of Him, regardless of the details of their theological differences. God in the Qur'an says:

Surely those who believe (in that which is revealed unto thee, Muhammad), and those who are Jews, and Christians, and Sabaeans – [in fact] anyone who believes in God and the Last Day and does good, they shall have their reward from their Lord and there is no fear for them, nor shall they grieve. (Qur'an 2:62)

Some Islamic schools produce beggars

Billion-dollar industry springs from religious system based on servitude
By Rukmini Callimachi
The Associated Press

This story, part of a yearlong investigation, is the first in an occasional series on trafficking and exploitation of children in West and Central Africa. Related stories will move in the coming months.

DAKAR, Senegal - On the day he decided to run away, 9-year-old Coli awoke on a filthy mat.

Like a pup, he lay curled against the cold, pressed between dozens of other children sleeping head-to-toe on the concrete floor. His T-shirt was damp with the dew that seeped through the thin walls. The older boys had yanked away the square of cloth he used to protect himself from the draft. He shivered.

It was still dark as he set out for the mouth of a freeway with the other boys, a tribe of 7-, 8- and 9-year-old beggars.

Coli padded barefoot between the stopped cars, his head reaching only halfway up the windows. His scrawny body disappeared under a ragged T-shirt that grazed his knees. He held up an empty tomato paste can as his begging bowl.

There are 1.2 million Colis in the world today, children trafficked to work for the benefit of others. Those who lure them into servitude make $15 billion annually, according to the International Labor Organization.

It's big business in Senegal. In the capital of Dakar alone, at least 7,600 child beggars work the streets, according to a study released in February by the ILO, the United Nations Children's Fund and the World Bank. The children collect an average of 300 African francs a day, just 72 cents, reaping their keepers $2 million a year.

Questioning the death penalty

Ayesha Khan

London - We should not wait for Turkey to lead us in understanding the diversity of Islamic thought on different matters. It is essential for Muslims to be aware of the many opinions that are out there and not assume that what they have been told by imams, scholars or their elders is the only option. Since there is no priesthood in Islam and no agency between the individual and God, it is vital for every Muslim to educate themselves and make up their own minds.

Take the death penalty, for instance, which is part of the legal code in some Muslim countries. Given that in the Qur'an God equates the taking of one innocent life with the killing all of humanity (Qur'an 5:32), it seems quite irresponsible not to clarify any potentially grey areas when it comes to taking someone's life.

The story of 23-year-old Pervez Kambaksh is a case in point. Kambaksh was tried and convicted for blasphemy in Afghanistan for distributing literature taken from the web about women's rights. He will be executed if his appeal is unsuccessful and the campaign to save him does not succeed.

Despite the view some people have of Islam as a strict and homogenous ideology, crimes that are understood to be punishable by death vary depending on who you speak to and where you are. Even the four main schools of Islamic jurisprudence have different views on which crimes deserve the death penalty. The differences come largely from the various interpretations of the hadith, a collection of sayings and deeds attributed to the Prophet Muhammad.

Targeting Iraq's Christians

By Mona Eltahawy

NEW YORK -- The gunmen used silencers on their weapons when they assassinated Assyrian Orthodox priest Youssef Adel outside his home in Baghdad last Saturday. But their message was loud and clear: Iraq's dwindling Christian minority is the target of a cruel bloodletting.

It may seem insensitive just to single out one group for sympathy in today's Iraq, but estimates that half Iraq's Christians have fled speak volumes to the horrors they have suffered since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion.

Father Youssef was the first priest to be killed in Baghdad since the invasion; the second to die in violent circumstances in Iraq in less than a month. The body of Archbishop Paulos Faraj Rahho, one of Iraq's most senior Chaldean Catholic clerics, was found in a shallow grave on March 13, about two weeks after his abduction in Mosul.

We do not know if Archbishop Paulos, who was elderly and reported to be on medication for heart problems, died from the stress of his abduction or if he was tortured and murdered.

He can be considered lucky. In 2006, Orthodox priest Boulos Iskander was also abducted in Mosul. Even though his family paid a ransom for his release, the group which kidnapped him still beheaded him, and the priest's arms and legs were also cut off.

Many lay Christians in Iraq complain that radical Muslim groups have given them a choice: convert to Islam, leave, or die. Christian women have been warned to wear headscarves.

Iraq's Christians are targeted by both radical Sunnis and Shi'ites. Unlike those Islamic sects, Christians do not have militias or large tribes to protect them. That leaves them particularly vulnerable to kidnappings and ransom demands by criminal gangs, who may pose as Islamic radicals -- or by the real radicals who target Christians because of their beliefs.

Beyond Unity vs. Sectarianism

Daniel Brumberg

Last week, Iraq’s Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki issued a 72-hour ultimatum to Shi’ite militants in the port city of Basra to surrender their weapons. When they called his bluff, he extended the offer by a full week, underscoring the great risk that Maliki had undertaken in pursuing a military solution to the conflict with the fiery cleric Muqtada Sadr and his “Mahdi Army.” In today’s Iraq, political clout ultimately flows from the barrel of many guns. Thus Sadr’s thousands of loyal followers will not disarm. This was the message that Sadr implicitly telegraphed to the government in his “9 point response” to Maliki’s demands.

Analyzing the motives behind the Iraq government’s actions, United States Institute of Peace expert Daniel Serwer suggested last week that the Prime Minister is determined to assert a “monopoly over the means of coercion” prior to the October, 2008 provincial elections. The government and its American backers know very well that political stability – much less democracy – will never come to Iraq if the national army (such as it is) continues to co-exist with independent Shi’ite, Sunni and Kurdish militias. But the situation is vastly complicated by infighting between the Mahdi Army and its principle Shi’ite rivals in the Badr Brigades--the Iranian-supported military wing of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq. Sadly, the time for dealing with this awful mess probably passed in 2003, when the Iraqi military was virtually dismantled.

Explaining shari'a

Noah Feldman

Cambridge, Massachusetts - Last month, Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, gave a nuanced, scholarly lecture in London about whether the British legal system should allow non-Christian courts to decide certain matters of family law. Britain has no constitutional separation of church and state.

The archbishop noted that "the law of the Church of England is the law of the land" there; indeed, ecclesiastical courts that once handled marriage and divorce are still integrated into the British legal system, deciding matters of church property and doctrine. His tentative suggestion was that, subject to the agreement of all parties and the strict requirement of protecting equal rights for women, it might be a good idea to consider allowing Islamic and Orthodox Jewish courts to handle marriage and divorce.

Then all hell broke loose. From politicians across the spectrum to senior church figures and the ubiquitous British tabloids came calls for the leader of the world's second largest Christian denomination to issue a retraction or even resign. Williams has spent the last couple of years trying to hold together the global Anglican Communion in the face of continuing controversies about ordaining gay priests and recognising same-sex marriages. Yet little in that contentious battle subjected him to the kind of outcry that his reference to religious courts unleashed. Needless to say, the outrage was not occasioned by Williams's mention of Orthodox Jewish law. For the purposes of public discussion, it was the word "shari'a" that was radioactive.

In some sense, the outrage about according a degree of official status to shari'a in a Western country should come as no surprise. No legal system has ever had worse press. To many, the word "shari'a" conjures horrors of hands cut off, adulterers stoned and women oppressed. By contrast, who today remembers that the much-loved English common law called for execution as punishment for hundreds of crimes, including theft of any object worth five shillings or more?

How many know that until the 18th century, the laws of most European countries authorised torture as an official component of the criminal-justice system? As for sexism, the common law long denied married women any property rights or indeed legal personality apart from their husbands. When the British applied their law to Muslims in place of shari'a, as they did in some colonies, the result was to strip married women of the property that Islamic law had always granted them — hardly progress toward equality of the sexes.